What a Relief? The Availability of Habeas Relief Under the Savings Clause of Section 2255 of the AEDPA

In Gilbert v. United States, a majority of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the savings clause contained in Section 2255 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act does not authorize a federal prisoner to bring in a habeas petition a claim, which would otherwise be barred by the AEDPA’s ban on second or successive motions, that the sentencing guidelines were misapplied in a way that resulted in a longer sentence not exceeding the statutory maximum. The majority focused on finality interests, and worried that allowing a prisoner to avoid the AEDPA’s ban on second or successive motions would lead to abuse and delay. Some, including the Gilbert dissenters, have expressed concerns that denying a prisoner relief where a retroactively applicable subsequent change in the law renders that prisoner’s sentence incorrect or invalid could result in constitutional violations. This Article attempts to get past the rhetoric from both sides of the debate and proposes a middle ground approach that would pacify both the administrative and constitutional concerns that have been raised.